Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > RC Jets
Reload this Page >

FAA registration

Notices
RC Jets Discuss RC jets in this forum plus rc turbines and ducted fan power systems

FAA registration

Old 12-16-2017, 11:29 AM
  #26  
dionysusbacchus
My Feedback: (25)
 
dionysusbacchus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: McQueeney, TX
Posts: 2,489
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Yea, I remember when Montana tried to fight the tyranny of the speed limit. They changed all the speed limit signs to say, "Speed Limit - Reasonable and Prudent".

You then had rednecks in junk cars with bald tires doing 115 mph. It was obvious that people need rules, just as the drone craze has shown us.
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	fresno-county-has-no-speed-cops.jpg
Views:	134
Size:	709.6 KB
ID:	2247845  
Old 12-16-2017, 08:53 PM
  #27  
bevar
My Feedback: (27)
 
bevar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Lake Worth, FL
Posts: 3,439
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Landing tonight in Miami with 168 people onboard. This is why the FEDS got involved FWIW.

Beave
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	ACARS.JPG
Views:	141
Size:	1.89 MB
ID:	2247894  

Last edited by bevar; 12-16-2017 at 08:59 PM.
Old 12-17-2017, 03:38 AM
  #28  
oliveDrab
 
oliveDrab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Georgetown, KY
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

There was a white drone on the runway 12 final at 1200 ft?

I'm all for the FEDS getting involved to ensure that the aircraft I'm a passenger in (or my loved ones are in) ... does not collide with a drone.

Last edited by oliveDrab; 12-17-2017 at 04:23 AM.
Old 12-18-2017, 12:29 AM
  #29  
RBardin
My Feedback: (27)
 
RBardin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Woodstock, GA
Posts: 464
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I agree with Desertlakesflyings' assertion that Taylor case needs to be reopened and the judge needs to order an injunction based on the previous ruling. I'll go a step further and say I'd like to see the AMA fund this action since they were embarassingly beat to the punch by Taylor to begin with.

A periodic reauthorization shouldn't nullify a legal decision. Maybe thru a loophole it now does, but since congress passed a law prior to the FAA's original overreach, and there is now legal precedent shooting it down, that injunction should be fast & easy.

How exactly does bowing to repeated & illegal FAA overreach by providing the FAA access to our bank accounts - then in turn being issued FAA numbers though not being afforded the same rights of access to federally funded airports to fly at - improve safety? Please be specific about the safety aspect with your answers.

I would argue that this has 100% nothing at all to do with safety, most especially to the safe operation of model aircraft by AMA members who are already sworn to strict and defined rules to begin with.
Old 12-18-2017, 06:19 AM
  #30  
dionysusbacchus
My Feedback: (25)
 
dionysusbacchus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: McQueeney, TX
Posts: 2,489
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by RBardin View Post

I would argue that this has 100% nothing at all to do with safety, most especially to the safe operation of model aircraft by AMA members who are already sworn to strict and defined rules to begin with.
It has everything to do with prosecution for violating regulations, it identifies operators and informs them of safety regulations, this in turn improves safety. Membership in the AMA is not required, so you have 800,000 operators out there with no guidance from the AMA. There are three groups outside the AMA right here in San Antonio with a combined membership of about 1,000 operators/pilots, compare that with about 250 members in all AMA clubs in the area with only about 50 of them being active flyers.
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Membership Revenue Trends.jpg
Views:	75
Size:	83.2 KB
ID:	2248015  
Old 12-18-2017, 06:50 AM
  #31  
SECRET AGENT
My Feedback: (18)
 
SECRET AGENT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bush, LA
Posts: 1,260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Then if you are already associated with the AMA, you should be exempt from the FAA registration.
Old 12-18-2017, 08:25 AM
  #32  
oliveDrab
 
oliveDrab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Georgetown, KY
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Lawyer

deleted

Last edited by oliveDrab; 12-18-2017 at 10:07 AM. Reason: not relevant
Old 12-18-2017, 08:48 AM
  #33  
oliveDrab
 
oliveDrab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Georgetown, KY
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Iah

Originally Posted by u2fast View Post
im going over to george bush airport and taking my 87lb weight waivered corsair. i will notify the tower of my tail number and that i intend to take off, get in the pattern and shoot touch and go's.
You're going to take your 87lb Corsair to IAH and fly it? No ... I don't think so!! Funny joke.
Old 12-18-2017, 10:05 AM
  #34  
BarracudaHockey
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 25,233
Received 152 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by RBardin View Post
I agree with Desertlakesflyings' assertion that Taylor case needs to be reopened and the judge needs to order an injunction based on the previous ruling. I'll go a step further and say I'd like to see the AMA fund this action since they were embarassingly beat to the punch by Taylor to begin with.

A periodic reauthorization shouldn't nullify a legal decision. Maybe thru a loophole it now does, but since congress passed a law prior to the FAA's original overreach, and there is now legal precedent shooting it down, that injunction should be fast & easy.

How exactly does bowing to repeated & illegal FAA overreach by providing the FAA access to our bank accounts - then in turn being issued FAA numbers though not being afforded the same rights of access to federally funded airports to fly at - improve safety? Please be specific about the safety aspect with your answers.

I would argue that this has 100% nothing at all to do with safety, most especially to the safe operation of model aircraft by AMA members who are already sworn to strict and defined rules to begin with.
Do you understand the Taylor decision?

Registration isn't illegal. Under the law at the time, the FAA was prohibited from making a new rule (doesn't matter what, it just happened to be registration) that affected model aircraft.

The judge ruled that the FAA clearly created a rule and voided the registration mandate.

Now, congress passed a measure that signs into law aircraft registration and charges the FAA with enforcing it. It's not an FAA rule so there's nothing to overturn. Adding to that, there was no reason for the AMA to challenge it on the terms that Taylor did because they/we knew that even relief would be short lived because Congress wants to at least give the appearance of promoting the safety of the NAS
Old 12-18-2017, 10:07 AM
  #35  
BarracudaHockey
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 25,233
Received 152 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by SECRET AGENT View Post
Then if you are already associated with the AMA, you should be exempt from the FAA registration.
You say "should" but the fact is, registration is law and AMA or not, you have to comply.
Old 12-18-2017, 10:10 AM
  #36  
SECRET AGENT
My Feedback: (18)
 
SECRET AGENT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bush, LA
Posts: 1,260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I do comply with the law (obviously), just seems like an unnecessary redundancy to me.
Old 12-18-2017, 10:25 AM
  #37  
rhklenke
My Feedback: (24)
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,966
Likes: 0
Received 25 Likes on 15 Posts
Default

Most people in the hobby didn't understand the Taylor decision, but Andy has it right in his post above. Most of us who have been involved in these matters for some time knew that the Taylor case was a waste of time. The lobbyists for the greater aviation community were working Congress to craft the law to reinstate registration before the judge in the Taylor case even reached his decision.

The non-UAS aviation community (i.e., full-scale aviation, commercial-drone guys, etc.) mistakenly think that accountability and enforcement are the only way to get drones away from full-scale aviation. Unfortunately, without education, the other parts won't be effective - especially given the lack of resources available for enforcement.

As I've said before, the AMA believes, rightly so, in my opinion, that the best way forward is to work *with* the FAA on the education front to be seen as part of the solution, not part of the problem. They did not join the Taylor case because 1) they knew it was a futile effort, and 2) it just served to piss-off the rest of the parties involved (the FAA, AUVSI, Drone users groups, etc.).

I still hold out hope, as does the AMA in their latest post, that they can work with the FAA to have the AMA membership and aircraft identification process be an alternative to FAA registration. Until that time, paying $5 and putting another number inside your models beside your AMA number is an easy way to avoid breaking the law. I have three such stickers on each one of my automobiles and three pieces of paper I have to carry on my person to legally drive them...

Bob

Last edited by rhklenke; 12-18-2017 at 10:28 AM.
Old 12-18-2017, 10:29 AM
  #38  
rhklenke
My Feedback: (24)
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,966
Likes: 0
Received 25 Likes on 15 Posts
Default

BTW, check this out:

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Re...pe=IA%EF%BB%BF

If they don't hang this guy, then they will never get anywhere with enforcement...

Bob
Old 12-18-2017, 11:45 AM
  #39  
RBardin
My Feedback: (27)
 
RBardin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Woodstock, GA
Posts: 464
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

They're using the AMA as a vehicle to supposedly "educate" the throngs of non-modeler, non-compliant drone operators who have no intent or desire to join the AMA, and no intent or desire to fly at AMA sanctioned fields.

The AMA has likely incurred expenses in doing programs and pushing awareness upon its members, who already get it. Our dues are rising. Someone tell me this has nothing to do with it. Then prove it.

Pushing awareness on the aware doesn't improve safety. It just makes compliant people mad. If congress really wants to make a difference, they should institute regulations barring the sale of any UAS prior to AMA registration. Not force already AMA registered pilots to obtain more registration. Its pointless overreach.

The non-compliant idiots who do stupid stuff with drones are just causing us to be further burdened.

"It has everything to do with prosecution for violating regulations, it identifies operators and informs them of safety regulations, this in turn improves safety. Membership in the AMA is not required, so you have 800,000 operators out there with no guidance from the AMA. There are three groups outside the AMA right here in San Antonio with a combined membership of about 1,000 operators/pilots, compare that with about 250 members in all AMA clubs in the area with only about 50 of them being active flyers. "

Your statement contradicts itself. Remove the first sentence and you'll have made my point for me. Unless the first sentence was /sarc? The authorities don't need a registration number to identify a violator and prosecute them. The whole problem is that membership is not required - and beating on us until it is? That isn't fixing anything.
Old 12-18-2017, 11:56 AM
  #40  
RBardin
My Feedback: (27)
 
RBardin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Woodstock, GA
Posts: 464
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by SECRET AGENT View Post
Then if you are already associated with the AMA, you should be exempt from the FAA registration.
Agree 100%, and so should our AMA and its SIGs. That was the spirit of the original law. Then the FAA decided to to have a ***** length contest with Congress at our expense.

That's how I see it anyway...
Old 12-18-2017, 12:00 PM
  #41  
RBardin
My Feedback: (27)
 
RBardin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Woodstock, GA
Posts: 464
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rhklenke View Post
BTW, check this out:

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Re...pe=IA%EF%BB%BF

If they don't hang this guy, then they will never get anywhere with enforcement...

Bob
" In addition, even though the sUAS pilot indicated that he knew there were frequently helicopters in the area, he still elected to fly his sUAS beyond visual line of sight, demonstrating his lack of understanding of the potential hazard of collision with other aircraft. In his interview, the sUAS pilot indicated that he was not concerned with flying beyond visual line of sight, and he expressed only a general cursory awareness of regulations and good operating practices. "

And thats a whole 'nother can of worms right there. Outside line of sight is not model aviation by definition - well, until that definition changed somehow, by someone.

But I agree with you - they should prosecute the guy.
Old 12-18-2017, 12:29 PM
  #42  
rhklenke
My Feedback: (24)
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,966
Likes: 0
Received 25 Likes on 15 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by RBardin View Post
Agree 100%, and so should our AMA and its SIGs. That was the spirit of the original law. Then the FAA decided to to have a ***** length contest with Congress at our expense.

That's how I see it anyway...
The AMA DOES agree %100 and so do its SIGs. The problem is, they haven't been able (yet) to convince the FAA that AMA membership and required aircraft marking are sufficient. Hopefully they will eventually be able to do so.

I hate to tell you, but both the FAA *and* Congress wanted registration. In fact, some in Congress want even MORE restrictions on hobbyists. What the AMA is trying to do, and has been successful in doing so far, is convincing them that AMA members are not general "UAS hobbists" and should be exempted from further regulation. That's what Section 336 says, and defending that is the only way forward...

Bob
Old 12-18-2017, 01:09 PM
  #43  
ravill
My Feedback: (11)
 
ravill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Granite Bay, Ca
Posts: 5,680
Received 76 Likes on 63 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rhklenke View Post

.....

The non-UAS aviation community (i.e., full-scale aviation, commercial-drone guys, etc.) mistakenly think that accountability and enforcement are the only way to get drones away from full-scale aviation. Unfortunately, without education, the other parts won't be effective - especially given the lack of resources available for enforcement.

Originally Posted by rhklenke View Post
BTW, check this out:

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Re...pe=IA%EF%BB%BF

If they don't hang this guy, then they will never get anywhere with enforcement...

Bob
Originally Posted by RBardin View Post

Pushing awareness on the aware doesn't improve safety. It just makes compliant people mad. If congress really wants to make a difference, they should institute regulations barring the sale of any UAS prior to AMA registration. Not force already AMA registered pilots to obtain more registration. Its pointless overreach.

.

This this this!!! All day long.

This registering people does not mean stopping idiots from doing idiot things.

Registration does not stop bad people from doing bad things.

There is ALREADY a law that you can't endanger people's lives.

I don't like drones, but I like to throw rocks up in the air. I like to see and measure their trajectories, just because it fancies me.

All of a sudden, I really like throwing rocks over groups of people and on to passenger jets on final to my local airport. Luckily for me, there are no laws against "measuring rock trajectories" and especially no laws against "measuring thrown rock trajectories in the path of passenger jets", so I'm living pretty large.

But if I had to put my FAA and AMA number on my rock, then I'd be ok no matter what? Right?

If you do something stupid, you need to be held responsible for your actions. Period. End of story.

Maybe we need to make laws against breaking laws.....Hmm......

What RBardin says regarding required AMA membership (I'd say life membership too) is probably the best solution as much as I hate nanny hand holding.
Old 12-18-2017, 01:57 PM
  #44  
rhklenke
My Feedback: (24)
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,966
Likes: 0
Received 25 Likes on 15 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ravill View Post
This this this!!! All day long.

This registering people does not mean stopping idiots from doing idiot things.

Registration does not stop bad people from doing bad things.

There is ALREADY a law that you can't endanger people's lives.

I don't like drones, but I like to throw rocks up in the air. I like to see and measure their trajectories, just because it fancies me.

All of a sudden, I really like throwing rocks over groups of people and on to passenger jets on final to my local airport. Luckily for me, there are no laws against "measuring rock trajectories" and especially no laws against "measuring thrown rock trajectories in the path of passenger jets", so I'm living pretty large.

But if I had to put my FAA and AMA number on my rock, then I'd be ok no matter what? Right?

If you do something stupid, you need to be held responsible for your actions. Period. End of story.

Maybe we need to make laws against breaking laws.....Hmm......

What RBardin says regarding required AMA membership (I'd say life membership too) is probably the best solution as much as I hate nanny hand holding.
I agree - registration does not educate the uneducated (like the guy who hit the Blackhawk) and the guys who do stupid stuff *on purpose* won't register! However, if you listen to our bloviating lawmakers, they think mandating registration is a great way to convince their constituents that they are doing something about the "big drone scourge" the news media keeps trying to use to sell more soap...

The whole thing is frustrating and demoralizing - BUT, I'm still remaining positive that in the end, the efforts of the AMA will keep us from being regulated out of our great hobby - as they have so far. I've been involved in this issue for some time, and I can tell you that the FAA guys I talk to are starting to get it - that is that traditional modelers are NOT the problem - that 99% of the problem is uneducated people who simply don't know better (education is key!) - and that there are ALREADY enough rules in place that they can hang the remaining 1%, IF they can catch them...

Now all we have to do is convince them that AMA membership and AMA aircraft marking is equivalent too (and even better than) FAA registrations - and should be an alternative to such.

Bob
Old 12-18-2017, 02:03 PM
  #45  
BarracudaHockey
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 25,233
Received 152 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

Bob, they aren't starting to get it, they have known for a long time, talking to Gibson and others, they think we are great, they want us (ama and responsible users of the NAS) to be part of the solution and not the problem. We are just collateral damage with a bunch of lawyers saying "you can't make rules for one group and not apply it to the other...."
Old 12-18-2017, 02:14 PM
  #46  
ravill
My Feedback: (11)
 
ravill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Granite Bay, Ca
Posts: 5,680
Received 76 Likes on 63 Posts
Default

And as long as I can help it, trick it and bamboozle it, I'm never going to renew my FAA number.
Old 12-18-2017, 02:22 PM
  #47  
rhklenke
My Feedback: (24)
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,966
Likes: 0
Received 25 Likes on 15 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey View Post
Bob, they aren't starting to get it, they have known for a long time, talking to Gibson and others, they think we are great, they want us (ama and responsible users of the NAS) to be part of the solution and not the problem. We are just collateral damage with a bunch of lawyers saying "you can't make rules for one group and not apply it to the other...."
I agree, I was mainly speaking about that attitude flowing down from the top FAA guys to the local FAA guys - like the ones we have in our area.

I think what honestly is needed is another CBO to be officially recognized for the drone guys who don't want to be AMA members - because some drone guys are "modelers" who like things that fly, including, but not limited to drones, and others are more drawn to drones because of the technology or photography capabilities. Those types would better fit into another drone-specific group. DUG is a possibility, but their safety code isn't robust enough yet, IMO...

Bob
Old 12-18-2017, 02:24 PM
  #48  
rhklenke
My Feedback: (24)
 
rhklenke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 5,966
Likes: 0
Received 25 Likes on 15 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ravill View Post
And as long as I can help it, trick it and bamboozle it, I'm never going to renew my FAA number.
That's entirely between you and the FAA... As long as you're an AMA member, you can fly at my field - just don't hollar for help when the MIB's come to get ya' !

Bob
Old 12-18-2017, 02:51 PM
  #49  
dionysusbacchus
My Feedback: (25)
 
dionysusbacchus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: McQueeney, TX
Posts: 2,489
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Like I said in my earlier post, we got caught up in this. I'll never fly over people or buildings or fly my model over a forest fire. There is no way the FAA is going to exempt people belonging to a small group called the AMA. People join and quit all the time, I don't see the point. Just like getting a drivers licence, you sign your name saying you will follow the rules, it's contract law. Much more expedient than the Constitutional jury trial. Maybe a lawyer can chime in, I may not know at all what I am talking about. But when you sign with the FAA you are saying you will obey the rules and can now be prosecuted. So you get caught doing something illegal and are not registered with the FAA, I think that would be an excellent time to make an example of someone.

Cry about this all you want, there is no way the FAA is going to allow some to not register. Times are changing, something has to be done and if it's left to the local counties and cities the laws could then ruin what is left of the hobby for all of us.

None of what the FAA is doing affects me at all, being AMA members we have extra benefits, I can now fly my 13' F-104 and fly it above 400'. I registered on the first day with the FAA and my life has not changed a bit. They already have all my information, I was in the military and got a Top Secret clearance.
Old 12-18-2017, 03:25 PM
  #50  
ravill
My Feedback: (11)
 
ravill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Granite Bay, Ca
Posts: 5,680
Received 76 Likes on 63 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by dionysusbacchus View Post
Like I said in my earlier post, we got caught up in this. I'll never fly over people or buildings or fly my model over a forest fire. There is no way the FAA is going to exempt people belonging to a small group called the AMA. People join and quit all the time, I don't see the point. Just like getting a drivers licence, you sign your name saying you will follow the rules, it's contract law. Much more expedient than the Constitutional jury trial. Maybe a lawyer can chime in, I may not know at all what I am talking about. But when you sign with the FAA you are saying you will obey the rules and can now be prosecuted. So you get caught doing something illegal and are not registered with the FAA, I think that would be an excellent time to make an example of someone.

Cry about this all you want, there is no way the FAA is going to allow some to not register. Times are changing, something has to be done and if it's left to the local counties and cities the laws could then ruin what is left of the hobby for all of us.

None of what the FAA is doing affects me at all, being AMA members we have extra benefits, I can now fly my 13' F-104 and fly it above 400'. I registered on the first day with the FAA and my life has not changed a bit. They already have all my information, I was in the military and got a Top Secret clearance.
I signed up, like I was told, like a good little boy.

My life changed significantly with what the FAA did. Three local flying fields mandated an FAA number, one of the local jet meets also mandated an FAA number. Oh, and I got $5 poorer.

And I could fly my 13" foamie toy airplane over 400' BEFORE I was mandated to register with the FAA.

And if all we needed to keep dromo's from doing stupid things with their drones, was registration with the FAA, then why does it keep happening?

Thank you rhklenke. I am an AMA life member and love this hobby. Its like my last one left for a while now with two kids, so I am VERY interested in keeping it alive and well.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.